There are so many being mentioned, will be hard to choose just one. I have ARTGX and IWIRX which have been mentioned each for over 5 years, happy with both, but I also added GSIHX this year. New shop, with a manager that has an excellent reputation from Virtus, which I held for a long time. He left and formed the GQG Partners. Worth a look. If this is your only exposure to foreign , I would likely go with one of Vanguard's funds and later spread out to others as money and risk permit you.

.....finance timelines below.
2007 Financial Markets Timeline

2008 Financial Markets Timeline
2009 Financial Markets Timeline
I may add a bit more; but have other appointments today, in my timeline.
Take care,
Catch

Good question, that. Shortly, I'm going to bite the bullet and switch gears from growth-mode to income mode. I will be deliberately moving to own less in equities and to a position of being overweight in bonds. Change is hard even when it's clearly appropriate. I just today checked my biggest holding. Over the past 5 years, I'm up in that fund by +50% in hard-dollar terms. PRWCX. "Take the profit and run, Crash." I still think I'll wait for the end-of-year shakeout and do this thing in January.

@catch22: I don't believe that anyone on the MFO Discussion Board has more invested in the Q's than myself. The (-1.34%) loss so far today means nothing when you consider the 16.05% annual return over the last ten years the Q's have provided me.
Regards,
Ted

'Course, a likely choice for profit taking are the winners, yes? Watching the tech. sector more so now; since the short melt in late January. Not too twitchy here yet, but watching. The long term profit stack is high from the past several years; but this does not imply I want to give any of this back to the marketplace.
Broad Category list, Real Time
***** Click %Chg, to sort percentage listing
Nuff said.
Catch

We should be thanking you for peeking our interest @Crash. (msf picked up on the short sales which I missed.) Yikes! I've got maybe 6-8 funds with those guys. I 've held all of them for 10 years or longer - with the exception of TMSRX which just opened. Sure makes me wonder why they need to offer so many different funds - and whether they're spreading themselves too thin.

"Laddering can be done with any fixed income product of a predetermined maturity, including bonds, CDs or fixed annuities"
Fixed annuities have a period of time when their interest rate is fixed, but they don't "mature" after that. They simply convert to paying a floating rate (still called "fixed annuities").
In this sense, they're like 5/1 adjustable rate mortgages - fixed rate for a period of time (here, five years), then a floating rate until the mortgage matures decades down the road.
You might want to lock in a new fixed rate with a new fixed annuity, but you're not forced to because the old annuity doesn't "mature".
Note that these days, many fixed annuities tack on market value adjustments (MVA) if you redeem before some "maturity" date, even if there is no "early withdrawal penalty" (to use CD terminology).
What that means is that the issuer is going to treat it like a bond - if interest rates go up while you hold the annuity, then its redemption value (or sale price of the equivalent bond) goes down, and you get less money. If interest rates go down (yeah, sure) while you hold the annuity, then you'll get more than face value for the annuity. Like a bond, you'll get face value at "maturity" or later if you continue to hold the annuity.
http://www.annuityadvisors.com/reference/detail/market-value-adjustment-mva?refid=12

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcarey/2018/09/04/2018-guide-to-bond-cd-and-annuity-laddering/#5f36c7a62d00
Forbes
You can just as easily stagger the maturities at 3 month or 3 year intervals or have an investment horizon of 3 years or 10 years. Ladder with Bonds ...

https://money.usnews.com/investing/dividends/slideshows/9-solid-stocks-growing-their-dividendsSolid Stocks Growing Their Dividends
Sept. 5, 2018
When investors look for stocks paying dividends, sometimes they fall into the trap of simply picking a big dividend yield. However, chasing yield can have its flaws.
You have to hold a stock for 12 months to get the full annualized dividend yield – and a lot can happen in that period, including potential reductions to payouts or severe declines in stock price. A better strategy for many investors over the long term is to hold a stable stock that continues to grow its dividend consistently.
These dividend growers may not offer the biggest yield, but they do offer the potential of steady increases in payouts and a lot of consistency as a result.
1. CVS Health Corp. (ticker: CVS). Health giant CVS saw some downward pressure in the wake of a massive $69 billion bid for health insurer Aetna (AET) in March. However, shares have bounced back recently with the stock up about 25 percent from those spring lows on increased optimism about the long-term prospects of this giant that is increasingly a one-stop shop for all things in health care.
For income investors, the dividend is nice but the long-term history of increases is even better. CVS pays a current rate of $2 annually per share, an extraordinary increase over the 28 cents it paid in 2008.
2. Microsoft Corp. (MSFT). Software giant Microsoft has been on a tear in the last few years, with its stock tripling since 2013 thanks to the shrewd leadership of CEO Satya Nadella. A new focus on cloud computing and a rejuvenation of the brand has helped propel this tech giant to new all-time highs like clockwork. The dividend has kept pace with that sharp upward climb, too.
Though a relatively new kid on the dividend block, tech giant Microsoft has wasted no time showing how generous it can be with payouts; dividends were 52 cents in 2008 and are currently pacing an annual rate of $1.68. – Jeff Reeves

FYI: Passive index fund investing is popular for a singular reason. In most cases, passive index fund investment returns surpass those of active fund managers.
John Bogle and his Vanguard brokerage firm launched the first S&P 500 index fund in 1977 with the idea that if costs were slashed, a simple fund that mirrored the S&P 500 had a chance to return close to 9 percent annually, the historical stock market average.
Gradually, the index fund caught on and today there are hundreds of varieties of index funds covering popular indices such as the Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500, to niche funds encompassing small-cap, growth, value stocks and more. Investors can also choose from bond, commodity and alternative asset index funds.
The index fund mania doesn't show signs of abating. A recent research report from Standard & Poor's found that index fund investing was more successful than ever. The 2017 report states that over the last 15 years, 92 percent of actively managed large-cap funds returns lagged those of a S&P 500 index fund. And, small- and mid-cap active funds were worse performers with 93 and 95 percent of indexes, respectively, winning the return competition over similar actively managed funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://money.usnews.com/investing/funds/articles/2018-09-05/are-actively-managed-mutual-funds-fading-away

FYI: PIMCO, one of the world’s premier fixed income investment managers, has hired John Studzinski as Managing Director and Vice Chairman of PIMCO in its Executive Office. Mr. Studzinski, who has spent most of his career working in Asia and Europe, brings to PIMCO 30 years of experience as a trusted financial and strategic advisor who has forged deep bonds among the world’s leaders in business, finance, government and NGOs. He will be based in PIMCO’s New York office and will report to Emmanuel Roman, PIMCO’s Chief Executive Officer.
Regards,
Ted
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pimco-hires-john-studzinski-managing-113000116.html

We own a couple there also: CWGIX and ABALX, and have owned CAIBX, ANWPX, AWSHX and AMECX on and off over the years. Of those all were decent performers except AMECX. I can't imagine why that one is supposed to be so great.

Such hype and salesmanship, but nothing novel.
What's being suggested is a zero coupon bond that converts to a fixed maturity coupon bond after a specified number of years. I recently owned such a bond (and not for this purpose). So there's nothing novel in the product. What is novel is the pitch.
They acknowledge that "annuities do a good job taking out longevity risk." This product does not. They say it becomes like an "annuity paying a stable, secure income". But that's only for a fixed term, unlike an annuity that guarantees its higher stable secure income for life.
It's interesting that they pitch mortgages as being simple because payments are a "constant number that aggregates some interest and some principal." Yet annuities, perhaps because payments are also constant number that aggregates some interest and some principal "are [considered] opaque". (It's this combination of principal and interest that accounts for annuities' stream of higher payments than bonds.)
Or are annuities opaque because you don't know how the issuer raises the cash to make those payments? The issuer simply promises to make the payments. And that's different from bonds exactly how?
Annuities are not perfect products. They are designed to provide a higher rate of guaranteed income for life. These bonds, while more liquid, fall well short of doing that.

Old_Skeet owns five of the twenty eight funds that made the list. They are CWGIX, AMECX, CABIX, ANWPX & ABALX. All have been held for a good number of years.

@BenWP,
While funds do make distributions either quarterly of semi-annually, you conveyed my point that this year will probably see significant distributions due the stock market gains of the last couple of years as well as what @msf pointed out above, new portfolio management has resulted in the cleaning-house of many long/short term holdings resulting in significant realizations of stock gains.

@Ted: An excerpt from a current Washington Post Article:
"Turkey’s woes could be just the start as record global debt bills come due"
"Ten years after the worst financial panic since the 1930s, growing debt burdens in key developing economies are fueling fears of a new crisis. For now, few experts think that a broader crisis is imminent. But the danger of a financial contagion should be taken more seriously in light of a massive increase in global debt since the 2008 downturn, the economists said."

The original intention language is indeed in ERISA (Pub. L. 93-406), right at the top, Title I, Subtitle A, Sec 2, "Findings and Declarations of Policy". That section was subsequently codified as 29 USC §1001.
Here's how the ICI summarized that language in 2005:

A little over 30 years ago, Congress enacted and President Gerald R. Ford signed into law the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The purpose of the Act was to protect and enhance Americans’ retirement security by establishing comprehensive standards for employee benefit plans. The Act also created the Individual Retirement Account, or IRA.

The ICI goes on to note that the purpose of those IRAs was narrow - to fill the gap only for "individuals not covered by retirement plans at work."
"IRAs “have drifted very far from their original intent” of helping those who need them most, researchers for the Center for Retirement Research [at Boston College] conclude in a new study."
http://squaredawayblog.bc.edu/squared-away/iras-fall-short-of-original-goal/
That study complements the data Lewis cited by providing data for the IRA subset of all retirement accounts. Its summary:

The brief’s key findings are:

• IRAs were intended to give those without an employer plan access to a tax-deferred savings vehicle.
• Today, IRAs hold nearly half of all private retirement assets, but most of these funds are rollovers from 401(k)s, rather than contributions.
• The 14 percent of households who do contribute to IRAs include:
  • higher-income dual-earners who also save in a 401(k);
  • moderate-income singles or one-earner couples, often with a 401(k); and
  • higher-income entrepreneurs with no current 401(k).
• One way to turn IRAs back into an active savings vehicle – one used more for contributions – is to auto-enroll all workers without an employer plan in an IRA.

The summary, including links to data (with charts) and to the full study, can be found here:
http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/who-contributes-to-individual-retirement-accounts/

How successful have such tax deferred plans been at their original intention of providing ordinary Americans with a secure retirement?

These numbers (from 2017) would suggest not very successful. If all retirees have to go with this is SS (no pension or employer provided health insurance), it would be tough living another 20-30 years on those amounts - even if savvy investors and even if the current exuberant market were to continue bubbling along.
Remember that these are tax deferred amounts - meaning a chunk of these savings will go to covering the deferred taxes upon withdrawal.
2017 Average 401K Retirement Plan Totals
Under age 25
Average 401(k) account balance: $4,773
Average 401(k) savings rate: 4.8 percent
Age 25 to 34
Average 401(k) account balance: $24,728
Average 401(k) savings rate: 5.9 percent
Age 35 to 44
Average 401(k) account balance: $68,935
Average 401(k) savings rate: 6.3 percent
Age 45 to 54
Average 401(k) account balance: $129,051
Average 401(k) savings rate: 7 percent
Age 55 to 64
Average 401(k) account balance: $190,505
Average 401(k) savings rate: 8.3 percent
Age 65 plus
Average 401(k) account balance: $209,984
Average 401(k) savings rate: 9 percent
https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/401ks/articles/2018-07-23/are-your-retirement-savings-ahead-of-the-curve
Above numbers based on a survey of actual 401K plan participants. Considering that fewer than half of all U.S. workers participate in a 401K plan (for a variety of reasons) the picture looks even bleaker.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/06/19/does-the-average-american-have-a-401k.aspx

These are not very early estimates of the annual distributions, but of Sept. distributions. Some Fidelity funds typically distribute gains in Sept and again in December.
It seems that in addition to HAINX, we have a couple more examples of what can happen when a new manager (even from the same management company) takes over a fund and turns its portfolio upside down. (I thought Fidelity was trying to get away from that.)
FDGFX - 14.75% distribution - M* writes "Gordon Scott officially took over in January 2018"
FCPVX - 18.82% distribution - M* writes: "The fund has undergone two manager transitions in recent years."

IMHO, the suggested rationale that RMDs be eliminated (or at least pushed back a few years, say, to age 75) because some people (a) are working now so don't need the money (b) will need the benefit of longer tax deferrals on those few years of RMDs they take before they retire, is a red herring.
If that really is a problem, it can be easily addressed without making broad changes in RMDs that affect everyone.
To some extent, it is already addressed. If someone over 70 works for an employer that offers a retirement plan accepting rollovers, the worker need just transfer the IRAs into the retirement plan. That gets rid of any RMD so long as the person continues working for the employer.
"The vast majority would still need to withdraw money on a regular cadence but allowing the untapped portion to further compound." Those workers in this "vast majority" withdraw money (RMDs or more) on a regular cadence and leave the rest of the IRA untapped to further compound. Done! That's the way things work now.
For the few (the "unvast minority"?) who don't need any money while working, they pay their taxes on the modest annual RMDs ("tax a little now") for a few years while they continue to work. They're not required to spend those RMDs. So they move their RMDs to taxable accounts, where they "benefit from additional time for their investments to compound"
There's no need to create more opportunities to abuse the system, merely to address what is to a large extent (i.e. for the "vast majority") not a problem. And for the few who are substantially affected, there are more targeted ways of helping them.